zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. CtrlAl+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-21 04:56:44
Using a common search engine for "python app calculate roadtrip"

is way faster, free, doesn't require a phone number or login, and gives much better results.

replies(2): >>cosmoj+p4 >>jibal+Rf
2. cosmoj+p4[view] [source] 2023-11-21 05:28:42
>>CtrlAl+(OP)
Not nearly as quickly or directly, though. LLMs augmented by search engines (or vice versa) seem to be an obvious and permanent innovation, especially for the general public who are notoriously awful at personally generating optimal keywords for a desired search query.
replies(1): >>Roark6+ld
◧◩
3. Roark6+ld[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 06:56:29
>>cosmoj+p4
I'm not convinced. On these few occasions where an AI chat bot went out, did a Google search and responded with results the quality of that answer was always much worse than if it just replied from it's training data. This of course excludes things that happened after training data ends.

For example, ask chatgpt about writing a python script that does anything with AWS inspector 2. It will do very badly, it will hallucinate, etc. Even with Internet access. Ask about doing the same with some other API that was well represented in the training set and it's great.

This is why I think predicting death for sites like stackoverflow is very premature. What happens 10 years down the line once everything chatgpt knows is old tech? It can't be simply trained with more recrnt data, because unless stackoverflow regains it's popularity there will be very little training data. Of course various data generation techniques will be invented and tried, but no one will match the gold standard of human generated data.

Unfortunately I have to predict inevitable enshittification of general purpose chat bots.

replies(1): >>dwattt+Rq
4. jibal+Rf[view] [source] 2023-11-21 07:21:19
>>CtrlAl+(OP)
Utterly false. A google search for that phrase yields "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search". And no search engine will yield the code for such an app unless the engine is LLM-based.
replies(2): >>CtrlAl+Wh1 >>jibal+jQ3
◧◩◪
5. dwattt+Rq[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 08:54:44
>>Roark6+ld
https://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html
◧◩
6. CtrlAl+Wh1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 14:56:30
>>jibal+Rf
Are we using the same google? Did you make a typo?

"python app calculate roadtrip"

>About 6,470,000 results (0.34 seconds)

Four out of the top five results have code. The other one is a video tutorial where the app is coded live.

◧◩
7. jibal+jQ3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 03:07:17
>>jibal+Rf
P.S.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22python+app+calculate+road...

If you leave off the quotes (which were present in the comment I responded to) then of course you will get millions of irrelevant hits. Somewhere in that chaff there is some Python code that alleges to have something to with road trips, though it's not always clear what. If I give the same prompt to ChatGPT I get a nicely formatted box with a program that uses the Google Maps Distance Matrix API to calculate distance and duration, without a bunch of junk to wade through. (I haven't tried it so it could be a complete hallucination.)

[go to top]